A new study assesses the immense cost of failing to stem the causes of climate change.

THE STAKES:

A tax on carbon emissions is the best way to promote the innovation needed.

Former secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson Jr., a lifelong Republican, has a stern message for his fellow members of the GOP: Stop arguing about evidence of global warming and take firm action now to reduce carbon emissions.

A new scientific study of climate change, commissioned by Mr. Paulson, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and retired hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, convincingly details how without immediate and aggressive action, havoc will be wreaked on the U.S. economy through the loss of property, reduced industrial and farming output and a significant increase in weather-related deaths.

The report, laid out by Mr. Paulson in a provocative piece in The New York Times, provides a stunning scenario of events over the next few decades and their immense price tag. Up to $106 billion in coastal property in the U.S. will likely be below sea level by 2050. Hot days will markedly increase, affecting agriculture yields and labor productivity. The demand for new sources of electricity to power air conditioners will mean more power plants and more pollution, costing consumers $12 billion per year.

The three businessmen turned to an economic research firm and to a company that does catastrophe modeling for insurance companies to plot climate change's impact. They admonish fellow business leaders to begin planning now for the accelerating effects of warming. For those fighting the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon emission limits, they suggest instead devoting resources to finding ways to reduce their own release of greenhouse gasses.

More Information

Former treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and George Schultz, who come from differing political backgrounds, also have joined in this clarion call for reducing carbon emissions by utilizing market forces and creative incentives targeting new technologies.

The best solution, Mr. Paulson insists, is a national tax on carbon emissions. Structured properly, it could minimize the impact on consumers through rebates while compelling energy companies to quickly adapt and innovate to lower the cost of clean energy. This rapid expansion of solar, wind, hydro and other renewable power sources will create jobs to expand the economy.

An overhaul of our energy infrastructure at this scale would strengthen national security by reducing dependence on oil from such places as Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Right now, proposals to restrict the oil and coal industries would surely be dead on arrival in the GOP-controlled House. The lockstep policy approach of today's Republican congressional leaders and Big Oil has led some advocates to urge a more modest approach.

But Mr. Paulson pragmatically says that we can't afford half-steps, because the global economy and our way of life are at stake. Congress must act while there's still time.